IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Unacceptable - (Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives)

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Mon, 09 December 2013 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6161A1AE541 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 12:30:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id azARZ_Kls4yR for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 12:30:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com (mail-ie0-f173.google.com [209.85.223.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E45D71AE2D2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 12:30:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id to1so7057935ieb.32 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:30:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8IFHcx/5LVrZYz4yQxwk9+AmimSWhyrKoHOYlcezEao=; b=VWF6yRRzy4yFsucru0jfXNP5eQ/QGq1kMpydi3f6mICaU2wnolW4ssos/rpofz7kAN 877MC3QTayxEamp5wNCgvFx6zNuMpZ7SP+NyyCDfnfboleNEhXce236hstUUhQEcvMod jtszY465v/+zJEdtb9ulvTI7LPG8WRCrw/2AktJhaEMYESdjCfSMTtHedMy+bOCZnIVc A16JiXqJLSaq2uZUPr5cd86PosPZoctvhnFf/prR9NjPZLKnc7BxypYyjWGAbA7oUWOF gg0ixcSouk3C7JwFPcpbkONio6TKkVsNbpgNHDrN5Kns1MyDFhS6xdFjfvFh0mN3wmGz kUvg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnJZCk053n6lJ8oVWtvkNcBa0L/woy+qOn2u30X4LSbWoI+xyklMkaLhYpp7mn/iFfMhK+2
X-Received: by 10.43.180.200 with SMTP id pf8mr3216567icc.50.1386621030879; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:30:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t4sm16332127igm.10.2013.12.09.12.30.29 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:30:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52A62852.2020606@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 15:30:10 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <52A603B8.3090904@dcrocker.net> <E25D14E7-7936-4C92-ADFC-A8CE36DCE980@cisco.com> <52A60DF2.6010301@dcrocker.net> <52A61481.5050005@bbs.darktech.org> <52A62805.6030004@librevideo.org>
In-Reply-To: <52A62805.6030004@librevideo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Unacceptable - (Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 20:30:37 -0000

On 09/12/2013 3:28 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:
> On 12/09/2013 02:05 PM, cowwoc wrote:
>> What about this?
>>
>> Yes: I am in favor of this option, and would implement it.
>> Acceptable: I am neutral on this option, but would implement it if it is
>> chosen as MTI.
>> No: I am against this option, and would not implement it even if it is
>> chosen as MTI.
>>
>> Gili
> This is still unbalanced, I believe, for many of the same reasons.  What
> about, "I am against this, but I will implement it even if it is MTI".
> This conveys an entirely different idea about feelings on an issue.  The
> person would have chosen differently if given an option, whereas neutral
> means they actually don't care about this vs. another option, meaning
> they're the same for the purpose.
>

I'm fine with changing the middle option to "I am against this, but will 
implement it even if it is MTI". It conveys the same feeling that I 
meant with the previous text.

Gili

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email